Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 169. TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 169.96 (2026)

Interpretation And Effect

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This chapter shall be interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.

(b) In all civil actions, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, by either or any of the parties to such action or actions shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1942–2022 · leading case: Gertken v. Farmers Elevator of Kensington, Minnesota, Inc., 411 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gertken v. Farmers Elevator of Kensington, Minnesota, Inc., 411 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 56× “Minn.Stat. § 169.96 (1982). Although section 169.”
Christensen v. Milbank Ins. Co., 658 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 4× “Under such a rule, an uninsured permittee, who is involved in a one-vehicle accident while driving impaired, would not be covered under the named-insured's policy.”
Butler v. Engel, 68 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 1954). · cites it 10× “It seems inconceivable that the legislature intended to say that speeds in excess of those specified are not “reasonable or safe” and are “unlawful” — which is the inescapable inference from § 169.”
George v. Est. of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 169.96(b) (2004). Proof of a traffic violation shifts the burden to the violator to show excuse or justification for the violation or to rebut the prima facie case.”
Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Werner Enter., 825 F.3d 413 (8th Cir. 2016). “Minn. Stat. § 169.96 (b) (“In all civil actions, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter .”
Lynghaug v. Payte, 76 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 1956). · cites it 4× “) Section 169.96 reads: “This chapter shall be interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.”
Anker v. Little, 541 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “865 , located amongst traffic statutes, bars civil suits requiring proof of the failure to use a child restraint system); see also Minn.Stat. § 169.96 (1994) (treating infractions of traffic regulations as prima facie evidence of negligence); cf.”
Wong v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 576 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 1998). · cites it 2× “Under Minn.Stat. § 169.96 (1996), a violation of a traffic statute "shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only.”
Wilson v. Sorge, 97 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. 1959). · cites it 2× “However, I am of the opinion that in cases involving damages for loss or impairment of future earning *134 capacity evidence of the value of plaintiff's earning capacity prior to the injury should be required in all cases where such evidence is available and where the…”
Kirsebom v. Connelly, 486 N.W.2d 172 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 169.96 (1990). Generally, “[wjhere a plaintiff proves a prima facie case and it is unrebut-ted by defendant, the plaintiff has met his burden of proof.”
Warning v. Kanabec Cnty. Co-operative Oil Assn., 42 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. 1950). · cites it 4× “The sole issue is whether decedent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. 1. Decendent's act in entering the highway from the private driveway without yielding the right of way to defendant's truck and his act in riding to the west side of highway No.”
Soo Line R.R. v. Werner Enter., 8 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (D. Minnesota 2014). · cites it 2× “45, at 6; see Minn.Stat. § 169.96(b). In other words, upon the showing by Canadian Pacific of the violation, Werner may adduce “evidence tending to show a reasonable ground for such violation.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 169.96(b) — 3 cases
Christensen v. Milbank Ins. Co., 658 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 2003). “Under such a rule, an uninsured permittee, who is involved in a one-vehicle accident while driving impaired, would not be covered under the named-insured's policy.”
George v. Est. of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2006). “Minn.Stat. § 169.96(b) (2004). Proof of a traffic violation shifts the burden to the violator to show excuse or justification for the violation or to rebut the prima facie case.”
Soo Line R.R. v. Werner Enter., 8 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (D. Minnesota 2014). “45, at 6; see Minn.Stat. § 169.96(b). In other words, upon the showing by Canadian Pacific of the violation, Werner may adduce “evidence tending to show a reasonable ground for such violation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.